Comparison of Alternatives

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Engineering Economy Practice Problems
Advertisements

ENGINEERING ECONOMY DR. MAISARA MOHYELDIN GASIM Chapter 4-5 Comparison of Alternatives Annual Worth Analysis.
Evaluating Business and Engineering Assets Payback Period.
Present Worth Analysis
Present Worth Analysis
ENGINEERING ECONOMY DR. MAISARA MOHYELDIN GASIM Chapter 4-5 Comparison of Alternatives Annual Worth Analysis.
Rate of Return Analysis
Flash back before we compare mutually exclusive alternatives.
COMPARING ALTERNATIVES
(c) 2001 Contemporary Engineering Economics 1 Chapter 8 Annual Equivalent Worth Analysis Annual equivalent criterion Applying annual worth analysis Mutually.
Chapter 11 Replacement Analysis.
(c) 2001 Contemporary Engineering Economics 1 Chapter 7 Present Worth Analysis Describing Project Cash Flows Initial Project Screening Method Present Worth.
Contemporary Engineering Economics, 4 th edition, © 2007 Comparing Mutually Exclusive Alternatives Lecture No.18 Chapter 5 Contemporary Engineering Economics.
Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Permission required for reproduction or display. 1 Blank & Tarquin: 5th Edition. Ch. 6 Authored by: Dr. Don.
Naval Postgraduate School Time Value of Money Discounted Cash Flow Techniques Source: Raymond P. Lutz, “Discounted Cash Flow Techniques,” Handbook of Industrial.
Intro to Engineering Economy
Establishing the Planning Horizon
Present Worth Analysis Lecture slides to accompany
1 Reviewing… Net Present Worth: Used to select among alternative projects. Used to compare mutually exclusive alternatives. If all expenses and revenues.
ENGINEERING ECONOMY DR. MAISARA MOHYELDIN GASIM Chapter 4-2 Comparison of Alternatives Establishing the Planning Horizon.
Comparing Projects Using Time Value of Money
Chapter 6 Future Worth Analysis.
ENGINEERING ECONOMICS ISE460 SESSION 10 CHAPTER 5, June 15, 2015 Geza P. Bottlik Page 1 OUTLINE Questions? News? Quiz results Go over quiz Homework due.
Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey All rights reserved. Engineering Economy, Fifteenth Edition By William.
The second objective today is to evaluate correctly capital investment alternatives when the time value of money is a key influence.
Slide Sets to accompany Blank & Tarquin, Engineering Economy, 6 th Edition, 2005 © 2005 by McGraw-Hill, New York, N.Y All Rights Reserved 6-1 Developed.
Slide Sets to accompany Blank & Tarquin, Engineering Economy, 6 th Edition, 2005 © 2005 by McGraw-Hill, New York, N.Y All Rights Reserved 5-1 Developed.
Principles of Engineering Economic Analysis, 5th edition Chapter 15 Capital Budgeting.
Contemporary Engineering Economics, 6 th edition Park Copyright © 2016 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Variations in Present Worth Analysis.
ENGINEERING ECONOMY DR. MAISARA MOHYELDIN GASIM Chapter 4-4 Comparison of Alternatives Future Worth Analysis.
Copyright ©2009 by Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey All rights reserved. Engineering Economy, Fourteenth Edition By William.
Chapter 7 Annual Worth Analysis.
ENGINEERING ECONOMY DR. MAISARA MOHYELDIN GASIM Chapter 4-3 Comparison of Alternatives Present Worth Analysis.
© 2012 by McGraw-Hill, New York, N.Y All Rights Reserved 5-1 Lecture slides to accompany Engineering Economy 7 th edition Leland Blank Anthony Tarquin.
Capital Budgeting: Decision Criteria
Principles of Engineering Economic Analysis, 5th edition Chapter 8 Rate of Return Analysis.
Ch 10-1 © 2004 Pearson Education, Inc. Pearson Prentice Hall, Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ Ostwald and McLaren / Cost Analysis and Estimating.
1 1. Order alternatives from lowest to highest initial investment. 2. Let Alternative A 0 (do nothing) be considered the current best. 3. Consider next.
ENGINEERING ECONOMY DR. MAISARA MOHYELDIN GASIM Chapter 4-1 Comparison of Alternatives.
Lecture No.18 Chapter 5 Contemporary Engineering Economics Copyright © 2010 Contemporary Engineering Economics, 5 th edition, © 2010.
Chapter 6: Annual Cash Flow Analysis Engineering Economic Analysis Canadian Edition.
Chapter 5 Present-Worth Analysis. 2 Loan versus Project Cash Flows Initial Project Screening Methods Present-Worth Analysis Methods to Compare Mutually.
L16: Comparing Mutually Exclusive Alternatives ECON 320 Engineering Economics Mahmut Ali GOKCE Industrial Systems Engineering Computer.
Contemporary Engineering Economics, 6 th edition Park Copyright © 2016 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Comparing Mutually Exclusive Alternatives.
Chapter 6 Annual Equivalent Worth Criterion. Chapter 6 Annual Equivalence Analysis  Annual equivalent criterion  Applying annual worth analysis  Mutually.
Comparison of alternatives
Chapter 6: Comparison and Selection Among Alternatives
Variations in Present Worth Analysis
Chapter 6: Comparison and Selection Among Alternatives
Comparing Mutually Exclusive Alternatives
Present Worth Analysis Lecture slides to accompany
Lecture: 6 Course Code: MBF702
Chapter 6: Comparison and Selection Among Alternatives
Chapter 2 Time Value of Money (TVOM).
Chapter 6: Comparison and Selection Among Alternatives
Establishing the Planning Horizon
Chapter 7 Present Worth Analysis
Example Problem A company is considering the purchase of a new piece of testing equipment that is expected to produce $8,000 additional income during the.
Present Worth Analysis Lecture slides to accompany
Rate of Return Analysis
Rate of Return Analysis: Multiple Alternatives
Different Life Alternatives
Present Worth Analysis Lecture slides to accompany
Lecture slides to accompany Engineering Economy, 8th edition
Chapter 6: Comparison and Selection Among Alternatives
Chapter 6: Comparison and Selection Among Alternatives
Capital Budgeting Techniques
Example Problem A company is considering the purchase of a new piece of testing equipment that is expected to produce $8,000 additional income during the.
Chapter 6: Comparison and Selection Among Alternatives
OUTLINE Questions? News? New homework due Wednesday
Presentation transcript:

Comparison of Alternatives Chapter 4-4 Comparison of Alternatives Future Worth Analysis

Systematic Economic Analysis Technique 1. Identify the investment alternatives 2. Define the planning horizon 3. Specify the discount rate 4. Estimate the cash flows 5. Compare the alternatives 6. Perform supplementary analyses 7. Select the preferred investment

Future Worth Analysis Single Alternative

Future Worth Method converts all cash flows to a single sum equivalent at the end of the planning horizon using i = MARR used mostly for financial planning not a popular corporate DCF method (take all cash flows to “time n” and add them up!)

Example 6.1 A $500,000 investment in a surface mount placement machine is being considered. Over a 10-year planning horizon, it is estimated the SMP machine will produce net annual savings of $92,500. At the end of 10 years, it is estimated the SMP machine will have a $50,000 salvage value. Based on a 10% MARR and future worth analysis, should the investment be made? FW = -$500K(F|P 10%,10) + $92.5K(F|A 10%,10) + $50K = $227,341.40 =FV(10%,10,-92500,500000)+50000 = $227,340.55

Example 6.2 How does future worth change over the life of the investment? How does future worth change when the salvage value decreases geometrically and as a gradient series?

Example 6.3 A recent engineering graduate began investing at age 23, with a goal of achieving a net worth of $5 million by age 58. If the engineer obtains an annual return of 6.5% and makes a first investment of $5000, what gradient increase is required? G(A|G 6.5%,36) + $5000 = $5,000,000(A|F 6.5%,36) G = [$5,000,000(A|F 6.5%,36) - $5000]/(A|G 6.5%,36) (A|F 6.5%,36) = 0.065/[(1.065)36 – 1] = 0.0075133 (A|G 6.5%,36) = {(1.065)36 – [1 + 36(0.065)]}/{0.065[(1.065)36 – 1]} = 11.22339 G = [$5,000,000(0.0075133) - $5000]/11.22339 = $2901.66

Multiple Alternatives Future Worth Analysis Multiple Alternatives

Example 6.4 Recall the example involving two design alternatives (A & B) for a new ride (The Scream Machine) in a theme park. A costs $300,000, has revenue of $55,000/yr, and has a negligible salvage value at the end of the 10-year planning horizon; B costs $450,000, has revenue of $80,000/yr, and has a negligible salvage value. Based on a FW analysis and a 10% MARR, which is preferred? FWA(10%) = -$300,000(F|P 10%,10) + $55,000(F|A 10%,10) = $98,436.10 =FV(10%,10,-55000,300000) = $98,435.62 FWB(10%) = -$450,000(F|P 10%,10) + $80,000(F|A 10%,10) = $107,810.60 =FV(10%,10,-80000,450000) = $107,809.86 Analyze the impact on FW based on salvage values decreasing geometrically to 1¢ after 10 years; analyze the impact of changes in the MARR on the recommendation; and perform incremental analysis.

Example 6.4 Recall the example involving two design alternatives (A & B) for a new ride (The Scream Machine) in a theme park. A costs $300,000, has revenue of $55,000/yr, and has a negligible salvage value at the end of the 10-year planning horizon; B costs $450,000, has revenue of $80,000/yr, and has a negligible salvage value. Based on a FW analysis and a 10% MARR, which is preferred? FWA(10%) = -$300,000(F|P 10%,10) + $55,000(F|A 10%,10) = $98,436.10 =FV(10%,10,-55000,300000) = $98,435.62 FWB(10%) = -$450,000(F|P 10%,10) + $80,000(F|A 10%,10) = $107,810.60 =FV(10%,10,-80000,450000) = $107,809.86 Analyze the impact on FW based on salvage values decreasing geometrically to 1¢ after 10 years; and analyze the impact of changes in the MARR on the recommendation.

Example 6.6 Recall the example with two design alternatives for The Scream Machine: A costs $300,000, has revenue of $55,000/yr, and has a negligible salvage value at the end of the 10-year planning horizon; and B costs $450,000, has revenue of $80,000/yr, and has a negligible salvage value. Based on an incremental FW analysis and a 10% MARR, which is preferred? FWA(10%) = -$300,000(F|P 10%,10) + $55,000(F|A 10%,10) = $98,436.10 > $0 =FV(10%,10,-55000,300000) = $98,435.62 > $0 (A is better than “do nothing”) FWB-A(10%) = -$150,000(F|P 10%,10) + $25,000(F|A 10%,10) = $9374.50 > $0 =FV(10%,10,-25000,150000) = $9374.25 > $0 (B is better than A) Prefer B

Example 6.8 Perform an investment portfolio analysis for the investment involving two design alternatives for The Scream Machine. FWDN(10%) = $450,000(F|P 10%,10) = $1,167,183.00 =FV(10%,10,,-450000) = $1,167,184.11 FWB(10%) = $80,000(F|A 10%,10) = $1,274,993.60 =FV(10%,10,-80000) = $1,274,993.97 FWA(10%) = $55,000(F|A 10%,10) + $150,000(F|P 10%,10) = $1,265,619.10 =FV(10%,10,-55000)+FV(10%,10,,-150000) = $1,265,619.72

Compare investment alternatives over a common period of time More on Unequal Lives Principle #8 Compare investment alternatives over a common period of time

Example 6.9 If an investor’s MARR is 12%, which mutually exclusive investment alternative maximizes the investor’s future worth, given the parameters shown below? What planning horizon should be used? What assumptions are made regarding Alt. 1 for years 4, 5, and 6?

Example 6.9 (Continued) If we use a 6-year planning horizon and assume no cash flows will occur in years 4, 5, and 6 for Alt. 1, the future worths will be as follows: FW1(12%) = -$10,000(F|P 12%,6) + [$5000(F|A 12%,3) + $5000](F|P 12%,3) = $10,990.43 =FV(12%,6,-5000,10000)+FV(12%,3,5000,-5000) = $10,990.36 FW2(12%) = -$14,500(F|P 12%,6) + $5000(F|A 12%,6) = $11,955.56 =FV(12%,6,-5000,14500) = $11,955.52 FW3(12%) = -$20,000(F|P 12%,6) + $3000(A|G 12%,6)(F|A 12%,6) = $13,403.40 =FV(12%,6,-1000*NPV(12%,0,3,6,9,12,15)+20000) = $13,403.27

Example 6.9 (Continued) If we use a 6-year planning horizon and assume Alt. 1 repeats with identical cash flows for years 4, 5, and 6 for Alt. 1, the cash flow profiles will be as follows:

Example 6.9 (Continued) Under the assumption that Alt. 1 is repeated with identical cash flows for years 4, 5, and 6, the future worths will be as follows: FW1(12%) = -$10,000(F|P 12%,6) + $5000(F|A 12%,6) - $5000(F|P 12%,3) + $5000 =FV(12%,6,-5000,10000)+FV(12%,3,,5000)+5000 = $18,813.08 FW2(12%) = -$14,500(F|P 12%,6) + $5000(F|A 12%,6) =FV(12%,6,-5000,14500) = $11,955.52 FW3(12%) = -$20,000(F|P 12%,6) + $3000(A|G 12%,6)(F|A 12%,6) =FV(12%,6,-1000*NPV(12%,0,3,6,9,12,15)+20000) = $13,403.27 Is it reasonable to assume an investment alternative equivalent to Alt. 1 will be available in 3 years? If so, why was the MARR set equal to 12%?